Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 16:42
Repulse wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 12:05
SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 10:12 As we have seen the proliferation of precision munitions and the use there off by irregular or state back groups requires vessels conducting these operations to have robust defensive capabilities which is why it can’t be an opv.
Yes, but let’s not over do it either. It again goes to the risk and threat assessment. Currently, there is only one region where this is a real threat and that’s around the Red Sea (Yemen) and Gulf (though still can’t see Iran actually doing it). Here we currently have a frigate and so it will continue.

Everywhere else is currently low threat, so why send an expensive frigate which costs four times to build and four times to operate to do a task that an OPV can do. And if you are concerned that there is a small chance that this may happen unexpectedly, then add a 40 or 57mm gun to the B2 Rivers to give it a degree of AAW protection - the radar is more than capable and the design has damage control far beyond a normal OPV.
So the threat from China in the Asia pacific is lower than the threat in the Arabian Sea? The threat of Chinese or Russian irregular forces in the west of Africa is low? It’s isn’t just about the weapons systems but the resilience of the platform itself. The rivers are just a normal opv if they were more along the lines of the Holland class opv we could have a discussion but they aren’t.

If the threat is low then in a limited budget world we need to discuss the point of being there in the first place.
It is fair to say a RB2 could be brought a lot closer to a Holland class if it was given a Sea Giraffe or NS100 Radar , 57mm and a UAV also as said before the RB2's could be given Hero 120 or now GSDB for coastal strike

I do agree that our main areas for patrol are both sides of Africa the South Atlantic and Caribbean with the home fleet looking after the North Atlantic Euro zone

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 15:12 The point of looking at HMNZS Canterbury is the "usefulness" of these kind of ships. HMNZS Canterbury is mainly used as military sea-lift ship = mini Bay-LSD (no well dock), and NOT as a patrol ship.
Virtually every class of RFA has been used in the last 10-15 years in a variety of patrol deployments.

What’s the difference apart from a Vard 7 313 being cheaper to operate than a Bay or a Wave?
(HMNZS Canterbury was originally considered to be a sea-lift ship and training ship, as well as patrol).
- Is this kind of ship really good as a patrol asset? Or shall it be considered mainly as replacements for RFA Argus and Bays?
- To be used as a patrol assets, what is the shortfall of HMNZS Canterbury, and how the Vard7 313 can mitigate it?
Good question.

The reason it is the right choice IMO is due to the wide ranging deployment criteria. The mix of HADR, maritime security, SF and FCF Ops and anti-narcotics patrols ensures that any vessel design will be a compromise. A Frigate might be good at maritime security and anti-narcotics but poor at a meaningful HADR response. Conversely a RFA is a massive waste of resource to chase drug runners in a RHIB.

The Vard is a great design but as I mentioned before I think it could be further optimised for UK service. The 4 helo hanger, twin spot flight deck and 2x CB90 plus 2x 11m RHIBs via davits, 20t crane and meaningful medical facilities are spot on. The stern ramp could be optimised further and as stated previously the beam narrowed to around 22m and the hull lengthened to around 138m. Achieving 24knts by upgrading the engines should be the target along with a 10,000 nm range.

The Vard 7 313 has two things that really aren’t required. The RORO capacity is impressive but is around 50% too large and the 300 PAX need be no more than 120.

By increasing the LOA, narrowing the beam, reducing to height and weight of the superstructure, the seakeeping qualities would be massively improved.

IMO they would be fantastic Patrol assets, great for HADR and a perfect mobile base of the SF/FCF.

With reduced PAX and RORO capacity and no floodable dock they would be in no way comparable to the Albions or Bays.
- Compared to River B2 OPV (or RNZN Otago-class OPV), surely these ship will need higher fuel cost, provide less maneuverability, but greatly enhanced capability. What is the optimal capability-operationcost tradeoff? Can RN learn something from HMNZS Canterbury? For example, if the stability issues are solved (= in calm weather season), HMNZS Canterbury is a good patrol asset?

This is the reason I mentioned about HMNZS Canterbury.
Firstly Vard aren’t know for making ships with poor seakeeping qualities - the opposite in fact.

The comparison with the RB2 is interesting, my questions would be what are they actually achieving apart from making friends? How much more could be achieved with a larger more capable OPV? How much does it cost to augment a RB2 with a RFA for HADR? It’s an interesting question but the RB2/RFA combination will lose to a Vard 7 313 on virtually every metric.

As the T31s are due to replace the forward based RB2s how do they compare with procurement and operating costs? Again vastly more expensive and that’s before a RFA has to be added into the equation for meaningful HADR.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Now that 3*FSS have been ordered, from memory the following ships were included in the UK's 30 Year Shipbuilding Plan, but are not yet ordered, and as far as we know publicly, have yet to be budgeted for:
  • River B1 replacement OPV's
  • 5*T32 Frigates
  • 6*MRSS
We don't yet know what design any of these will use or where thy will be built. If they are currently unbudgeted, then will they be covered by future years budgets. Having sold Ocean, we are left with Argus, 2*Albions, 3*Bays - will the 6*MRSS replace some or all of these?

Can we afford any / all of the above ships unless the RN gets further funding? So we have a lot of unknowns, and that is without considering what to do anout the current River B2s and upcoming T31s.

For years the RN has steadily reduced its overseas operations as the size of the fleet has been slashed following various post-Cold War Defence Plans. The current mission of Spey and Tamar in the indo-pacific has been great in (re)building relationships with navies and nations, in some cases many decades since RN last visted. I have been critical of the RB2s in the past for being undergunned - perhaps this in a bizarre way has helped their current mission. Rather than parking a Gunboat bristling with weapons off their shores, the RB2s have excelled in softpower diplomacy, getting nations more favourably disposed to the RN and to to the UK in general. Surely it is better to stop a war from happening in the firt place rather than having to fight it??

I would extend the work that Spey and Tamar are doing and have the others cover East and West Africa, South and Central America. If we are serious about allliances and trade agreements such as Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), then we need to have a presence. Forgetting our allies Australia, NZ, Canada and more recently Japan, what counties like: Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.

In that role I would keep the RB2s armed as is. But if tensions rise or we need them to take a more active role e.g. anti-piracy missions, then I would be happy with a modest uparming - maybe to a 40mm main cannon and 2*20mm secondary cannons, backed up by 4*HMG, and cheaper UAV and USV for ISR.

I have said before my wish to likewise see T31s upgraded. Adding some form of Sonar, upping to 24 CAMM, and adding 8*NSM containers (when moved from T23s) wold allow the T31s to be a proper GP Frigate and thus suitable replacemnt for T23 GP.

Re CSG, I have said before we can afford to have 1 on long deployment to say Indo Pacific every 2-3 times. And at other times I hope we can rotate them between short routine maintenance to hav them both on short deployments closer to home. As well as CASD and ASW especially in GIUK Gap and North Atlantic / Norwegian Sea, that will tie up the T26s and T45s.

Re LRG, I still hope we don't lose the capability to operate at least one Commando at Battalion level to Scandinavia. I agree that further afield we would be limted to maybe Company loevel operations from LRG(S) based in Oman, and otherwise Platoon level operation from other ships advance deployed. So I would envisage LRG(S) being smaller than LRG(N) and/or spread over smaller ships. I would have no problem if 3 or 4 of the intended MRSS end up something like the Vard 7-313 detailed by others in this thread.

I still think we need OPV smaller than the Vard 7-313 to concentrate on Fishery Protection and other low-intensity missions in the UK Maritime EEZ, both home waters and for British Overseas Territories. I wanted these to be smaller and cheaper than RB2s. We need to prioritise money towards medium and high intensity missions. These need to have good sea keeping and be able to outgun drup smugglers etc with small arms. So these OPV could be armed even 1*20mm and 2*HMG, couple of RIB's, and again any cheap UAV/USV for ISR.

So going back to the initial budgets for OPV, 6*MRSS, 5*T32, I would have no problem cancelling the T32, and use the money to restock ammo and pay for the uparming of the T31. I would like 5-6 cheaper OPV to replace RB1s. And would be happy if some of 6*MRSS budget was used for 3-4 Multi Purpose Vessels, whether the previously discussed 110m Sloops or the aforementioned slightly larger Vard 7-313.

That to me just leaves replacing Ocean and eventually Argus with the other two MRSS, but that is more for Amphib thread.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyoserge750

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 15:23 Not sure. If killing USVs by shock is aimed, how powerful your depths charges will needed to be? "Shock tolerant" drones are technically feasible (because it is small and area exposed to shock is not large). If 500 kg of powder is needed, how can you deliver it?

If we want to physically destroy the UUVs, depth information is needed for depth charges, I guess? How can we get it?
We get the depth information in the same old way, sonar.

Depth charges will still destroy or seriously damage any subs out there. No one will build a UUV to the same standards as a manned submersible as to do so would invalidate one of the main reasons for building one in the first place.
SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 17:06 Ensuring the Baltic is free of russian aggression
With Sweden and Finlands accession into NATO I don't think there is any need for the UK to have any involvement in that theatre whatsoever. It's a NATO lake now. The countries that border the Baltic are more than capable of looking after business there to an enormous degree.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Timmymagic wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 20:57
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 15:23 Not sure. If killing USVs by shock is aimed, how powerful your depths charges will needed to be? "Shock tolerant" drones are technically feasible (because it is small and area exposed to shock is not large). If 500 kg of powder is needed, how can you deliver it?

If we want to physically destroy the UUVs, depth information is needed for depth charges, I guess? How can we get it?
We get the depth information in the same old way, sonar.

Depth charges will still destroy or seriously damage any subs out there. No one will build a UUV to the same standards as a manned submersible as to do so would invalidate one of the main reasons for building one in the first place.
SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 17:06 Ensuring the Baltic is free of russian aggression
With Sweden and Finlands accession into NATO I don't think there is any need for the UK to have any involvement in that theatre whatsoever. It's a NATO lake now. The countries that border the Baltic are more than capable of looking after business there to an enormous degree.
We are the lead framework nation of the Joint expeditionary force are we not?

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 22:14
Timmymagic wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 20:57
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 15:23 Not sure. If killing USVs by shock is aimed, how powerful your depths charges will needed to be? "Shock tolerant" drones are technically feasible (because it is small and area exposed to shock is not large). If 500 kg of powder is needed, how can you deliver it?

If we want to physically destroy the UUVs, depth information is needed for depth charges, I guess? How can we get it?
We get the depth information in the same old way, sonar.

Depth charges will still destroy or seriously damage any subs out there. No one will build a UUV to the same standards as a manned submersible as to do so would invalidate one of the main reasons for building one in the first place.
SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 17:06 Ensuring the Baltic is free of russian aggression
With Sweden and Finlands accession into NATO I don't think there is any need for the UK to have any involvement in that theatre whatsoever. It's a NATO lake now. The countries that border the Baltic are more than capable of looking after business there to an enormous degree.
We are the lead framework nation of the Joint expeditionary force are we not?
The scope of the NATO JEF would have changed previously when Poland and the Baltic States joined NATO, and I can oly presume it will change again once Sweden and Finland join NATO. Now presumably both Sweden and Finland will be in a position to make significant military contribution to JEF.

But it should still provoke a discussion within NATO military command of what each contributor can offer - what can we contribute to the JEF that other countries lack?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

The JEF is a northern European security coalition of mainly Nordic and Baltic countries, including the UK, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) says the UK is "proud to be at the centre of JEF", acting as the alliance's "framework" nation.

The MOD has said that JEF nations share the same values, act quickly and continuously, help bring stability and security in the North Atlantic, Baltic Sea Region and in the High North, and come "together to enhance each other's military skills and capabilities".

In March last year, three members of JEF joined the UK to conduct maritime patrols in the Baltic Sea.

HMS Lancaster and HMS Westminster were joined by RFA Tiderace and vessels from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia for a joint demonstration of the participant nations' commitment to the security and stability of the region.


Hence why the Baltic is and will remain of critical importance to the UK defence posture

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4585
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 16:42 So the threat from China in the Asia pacific is lower than the threat in the Arabian Sea? The threat of Chinese or Russian irregular forces in the west of Africa is low?
Yes, the threat of open aggression is much lower. The Chinese are not stupid, nor desperate like Russia, the will continue to probe using their paramilitary fishing fleets testing resolve in areas in the South China Sea where they want to be dominant, but the last thing they want is armed conflict (at-least not yet). The maritime threat in West Africa is primarily in the Nigerian delta, where piracy and to a degree terrorism is a challenge, but none of this is at the same level as the Gulf region.
SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 16:42 It’s isn’t just about the weapons systems but the resilience of the platform itself. The rivers are just a normal opv if they were more along the lines of the Holland class opv we could have a discussion but they aren’t.
Let’s not get started on a Sloop-of-War for the RN shall we though it’s good to see you are starting to see the potential. The B2s are OPVs, but significant design effort went in to damage control, and I think it’s wrong to describe them as a “normal OPV”.
SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 16:42 If the threat is low then in a limited budget world we need to discuss the point of being there in the first place.
Threat does not equal need. Putting aside the UKs obligations to help police the high seas from piracy and drug smuggling, the need for experience in working with other navies and operating in areas that may one day be conflict zones is extremely valuable.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
wargame_insomniac
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 05 Mar 2023, 10:42
SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 16:42 So the threat from China in the Asia pacific is lower than the threat in the Arabian Sea? The threat of Chinese or Russian irregular forces in the west of Africa is low?
Yes, the threat of open aggression is much lower. The Chinese are not stupid, nor desperate like Russia, the will continue to probe using their paramilitary fishing fleets testing resolve in areas in the South China Sea where they want to be dominant, but the last thing they want is armed conflict (at-least not yet). The maritime threat in West Africa is primarily in the Nigerian delta, where piracy and to a degree terrorism is a challenge, but none of this is at the same level as the Gulf region.
SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 16:42 It’s isn’t just about the weapons systems but the resilience of the platform itself. The rivers are just a normal opv if they were more along the lines of the Holland class opv we could have a discussion but they aren’t.
Let’s not get started on a Sloop-of-War for the RN shall we though it’s good to see you are starting to see the potential. The B2s are OPVs, but significant design effort went in to damage control, and I think it’s wrong to describe them as a “normal OPV”.
SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 16:42 If the threat is low then in a limited budget world we need to discuss the point of being there in the first place.
Threat does not equal need. Putting aside the UKs obligations to help police the high seas from piracy and drug smuggling, the need for experience in working with other navies and operating in areas that may one day be conflict zones is extremely valuable.
We will agree to differ on that.

Yes that potential for your sloop is type 31 not a river. Not much effort went into the rivers other than we need to build something quick because we have been dithering for a decade.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 05 Mar 2023, 11:31
Repulse wrote: 05 Mar 2023, 10:42
SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 16:42 So the threat from China in the Asia pacific is lower than the threat in the Arabian Sea? The threat of Chinese or Russian irregular forces in the west of Africa is low?
Yes, the threat of open aggression is much lower. The Chinese are not stupid, nor desperate like Russia, the will continue to probe using their paramilitary fishing fleets testing resolve in areas in the South China Sea where they want to be dominant, but the last thing they want is armed conflict (at-least not yet). The maritime threat in West Africa is primarily in the Nigerian delta, where piracy and to a degree terrorism is a challenge, but none of this is at the same level as the Gulf region.
SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 16:42 It’s isn’t just about the weapons systems but the resilience of the platform itself. The rivers are just a normal opv if they were more along the lines of the Holland class opv we could have a discussion but they aren’t.
Let’s not get started on a Sloop-of-War for the RN shall we though it’s good to see you are starting to see the potential. The B2s are OPVs, but significant design effort went in to damage control, and I think it’s wrong to describe them as a “normal OPV”.
SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 16:42 If the threat is low then in a limited budget world we need to discuss the point of being there in the first place.
Threat does not equal need. Putting aside the UKs obligations to help police the high seas from piracy and drug smuggling, the need for experience in working with other navies and operating in areas that may one day be conflict zones is extremely valuable.
We will agree to differ on that.

Yes that potential for your sloop is type 31 not a river. Not much effort went into the rivers other than we need to build something quick because we have been dithering for a decade.
This is just not right there were 29 mods made to the RB2's over the BAE-90 sold to Brazil including magazine protection , higher naval standard build better fire control and redundancy I would say they are closer to a corvette in build standard just lack the weapons

As for weather the RB2's are fitted with a 30 , 40 or 57mm this will not stop them doing port visits where they are allowed now

for me as I have said we need 8 x OPV's and 8 type 31 with 4 of each - each side of Suez something like

2 x T-31 & 2 x RB2's Home fleet = UK , Baltic & Med
2 x T-31 & 2 x RB'2's South Atlantic = West Africa , South America and Caribbean
3 x T-31 & 2 x RB2's Indian Ocean & Gulf
1 x T-31 & 2 x RB2's Pacific

For me this is what is needed by the RN in playing its part to counter China and Russia in the years ahead

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

That's a shyt load of flag waving & embassy parties. Should keep the Chinese in their corner (eyes roll).

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 05 Mar 2023, 12:38
SW1 wrote: 05 Mar 2023, 11:31
Repulse wrote: 05 Mar 2023, 10:42
SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 16:42 So the threat from China in the Asia pacific is lower than the threat in the Arabian Sea? The threat of Chinese or Russian irregular forces in the west of Africa is low?
Yes, the threat of open aggression is much lower. The Chinese are not stupid, nor desperate like Russia, the will continue to probe using their paramilitary fishing fleets testing resolve in areas in the South China Sea where they want to be dominant, but the last thing they want is armed conflict (at-least not yet). The maritime threat in West Africa is primarily in the Nigerian delta, where piracy and to a degree terrorism is a challenge, but none of this is at the same level as the Gulf region.
SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 16:42 It’s isn’t just about the weapons systems but the resilience of the platform itself. The rivers are just a normal opv if they were more along the lines of the Holland class opv we could have a discussion but they aren’t.
Let’s not get started on a Sloop-of-War for the RN shall we though it’s good to see you are starting to see the potential. The B2s are OPVs, but significant design effort went in to damage control, and I think it’s wrong to describe them as a “normal OPV”.
SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 16:42 If the threat is low then in a limited budget world we need to discuss the point of being there in the first place.
Threat does not equal need. Putting aside the UKs obligations to help police the high seas from piracy and drug smuggling, the need for experience in working with other navies and operating in areas that may one day be conflict zones is extremely valuable.
We will agree to differ on that.

Yes that potential for your sloop is type 31 not a river. Not much effort went into the rivers other than we need to build something quick because we have been dithering for a decade.
This is just not right there were 29 mods made to the RB2's over the BAE-90 sold to Brazil including magazine protection , higher naval standard build better fire control and redundancy I would say they are closer to a corvette in build standard just lack the weapons

As for weather the RB2's are fitted with a 30 , 40 or 57mm this will not stop them doing port visits where they are allowed now

for me as I have said we need 8 x OPV's and 8 type 31 with 4 of each - each side of Suez something like

2 x T-31 & 2 x RB2's Home fleet = UK , Baltic & Med
2 x T-31 & 2 x RB'2's South Atlantic = West Africa , South America and Caribbean
3 x T-31 & 2 x RB2's Indian Ocean & Gulf
1 x T-31 & 2 x RB2's Pacific

For me this is what is needed by the RN in playing its part to counter China and Russia in the years ahead
I have been critical of both RB2s and T31 - I think both ships ar either underarmed for their size or too large for their current armanent.

Some have suggested that we sell some or all of them - I disagree with that answer as I don't think we would reciup enough of the cost to get sufficient cash to fund any alternative.

You have suggested buying more of each - it does give a nice symmetry to RN having 8 apiece of T26 / T31 / RB2, but I can't agree with simply buying more of them as currently armed and equipped. It gives the RN 6 more hulls, but we cannot currently afford to crew all the hulls we currently have (see Montrose now being decommissioned early so w can crew the next ship coming out of LIFEX).

Hence why I have suggested keeping the 5*T31 and 5*RB2, and cancelling the 5*T32, and using any funds saved to correct / mitigate any capability gaps:
  • First replenishing our dwindling ammo and munitions stores.
  • Second, getting rid of previous Fitted For But Not With policy e.g. the T31 need as a minimum to be armed and equipped to the same level as the T23 GP Frigates that they are replacing, as previously discussed many times before.
  • Third, accelerate the timing of planned fitting of more VLS cells / NSM containers to the exisiting ships.
  • Fourth, strengthen the core ASW mission in North Atlantic / Norwegian Sea by adding minimum 3*P8 aircraft and adding Sky Guardian UAV to give a layered defence vs Russian subs.
Anything beyond that is requiring additional funds and/or using the funds from proposed 6*MRSS, (which in itslf could create a capability gap if we don't adequately replace the exisiting ageing amphibs).
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post (total 2):
serge750donald_of_tokyo

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Just to feed into the fleet balance and Baltic discussions.
Current planning for German fleet by 2035.
D1C44A39-3009-4B54-B072-037A81D1A2CF.jpeg

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 05 Mar 2023, 18:20
Tempest414 wrote: 05 Mar 2023, 12:38
SW1 wrote: 05 Mar 2023, 11:31
Repulse wrote: 05 Mar 2023, 10:42
SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 16:42 So the threat from China in the Asia pacific is lower than the threat in the Arabian Sea? The threat of Chinese or Russian irregular forces in the west of Africa is low?
Yes, the threat of open aggression is much lower. The Chinese are not stupid, nor desperate like Russia, the will continue to probe using their paramilitary fishing fleets testing resolve in areas in the South China Sea where they want to be dominant, but the last thing they want is armed conflict (at-least not yet). The maritime threat in West Africa is primarily in the Nigerian delta, where piracy and to a degree terrorism is a challenge, but none of this is at the same level as the Gulf region.
SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 16:42 It’s isn’t just about the weapons systems but the resilience of the platform itself. The rivers are just a normal opv if they were more along the lines of the Holland class opv we could have a discussion but they aren’t.
Let’s not get started on a Sloop-of-War for the RN shall we though it’s good to see you are starting to see the potential. The B2s are OPVs, but significant design effort went in to damage control, and I think it’s wrong to describe them as a “normal OPV”.
SW1 wrote: 04 Mar 2023, 16:42 If the threat is low then in a limited budget world we need to discuss the point of being there in the first place.
Threat does not equal need. Putting aside the UKs obligations to help police the high seas from piracy and drug smuggling, the need for experience in working with other navies and operating in areas that may one day be conflict zones is extremely valuable.
We will agree to differ on that.

Yes that potential for your sloop is type 31 not a river. Not much effort went into the rivers other than we need to build something quick because we have been dithering for a decade.
This is just not right there were 29 mods made to the RB2's over the BAE-90 sold to Brazil including magazine protection , higher naval standard build better fire control and redundancy I would say they are closer to a corvette in build standard just lack the weapons

As for weather the RB2's are fitted with a 30 , 40 or 57mm this will not stop them doing port visits where they are allowed now

for me as I have said we need 8 x OPV's and 8 type 31 with 4 of each - each side of Suez something like

2 x T-31 & 2 x RB2's Home fleet = UK , Baltic & Med
2 x T-31 & 2 x RB'2's South Atlantic = West Africa , South America and Caribbean
3 x T-31 & 2 x RB2's Indian Ocean & Gulf
1 x T-31 & 2 x RB2's Pacific

For me this is what is needed by the RN in playing its part to counter China and Russia in the years ahead
I have been critical of both RB2s and T31 - I think both ships ar either underarmed for their size or too large for their current armanent.

Some have suggested that we sell some or all of them - I disagree with that answer as I don't think we would reciup enough of the cost to get sufficient cash to fund any alternative.

You have suggested buying more of each - it does give a nice symmetry to RN having 8 apiece of T26 / T31 / RB2, but I can't agree with simply buying more of them as currently armed and equipped. It gives the RN 6 more hulls, but we cannot currently afford to crew all the hulls we currently have (see Montrose now being decommissioned early so w can crew the next ship coming out of LIFEX).

Hence why I have suggested keeping the 5*T31 and 5*RB2, and cancelling the 5*T32, and using any funds saved to correct / mitigate any capability gaps:
  • First replenishing our dwindling ammo and munitions stores.
  • Second, getting rid of previous Fitted For But Not With policy e.g. the T31 need as a minimum to be armed and equipped to the same level as the T23 GP Frigates that they are replacing, as previously discussed many times before.
  • Third, accelerate the timing of planned fitting of more VLS cells / NSM containers to the exisiting ships.
  • Fourth, strengthen the core ASW mission in North Atlantic / Norwegian Sea by adding minimum 3*P8 aircraft and adding Sky Guardian UAV to give a layered defence vs Russian subs.
Anything beyond that is requiring additional funds and/or using the funds from proposed 6*MRSS, (which in itslf could create a capability gap if we don't adequately replace the exisiting ageing amphibs).
I understand your point but for me get hulls in the water and that is why I would also dump the idea of T-32 and take the money lets call it 2.5 billion and I would go with

3 x type 31 cost 380 million = 1.14 billion
3 x RB2's cost 120 million = 360 million ( fitted with 40mm )
5 x 40mm = 100 million ( for the 5 RB2's )
8 x NSM = 160 million
4 x containerised TAS = 140 million
12 x 12 GSDB = 12 million
8 x UAV's = 80 million

Total = 2 billion

My total belief is type 31 will deploy on its first deployment with 24 CAMM , S2170 ATS , and 8 NSM

Also for me a weapon like Ground launch small diameter bomb with its 150 Km range and cheap price it can give the patrol fleet a good land and sea strike in the Littoral zone

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote: 05 Mar 2023, 17:29 That's a shyt load of flag waving & embassy parties. Should keep the Chinese in their corner (eyes roll).
China is powerful but it terms of what it faces it way down i.e the hole Chinese fleet is still smaller than the NATO Europe fleet. and smaller than the joint allied fleets of the Pacific

Also the key words were for the RN to play its part not for the RN to go head to head

No matter what happens now Russia has taken a real kicking on the world stage so they are going to be a pain in the ass on high seas where they can fuck others about

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 3):
serge750donald_of_tokyowargame_insomniac

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

The article says, 7 (5 T23 and 2 T45) of the 18 (soon to be 17) escorts are in deep refit. In other words, only 11 escorts are manned.

Today, we read the news of HMS Enterprise decommissioning in a month.

T31 and T26, being new, will provide good active fraction. This is already good enough. Simple calculation leads me to see that the crew of 11 escorts are just the crew needed for the 5 T31, 8 T26 and 6 T45 (still one of each in long refit).

- 200 x11 = 2200 (including flight)
- 125 x4 (T31; one in refit) + 160 x 7 (T26; one in refit) + 200 x 5 (T45) = 2620 (including flight)

No need for "more escorts". This calculation shows we need at least 2 more escort to be put into long refit (or extended readiness).

There is absolutely no need for T32. Much better to invest the money to improve ammo stock, increase the man-power salary, and up-arm the existing assets.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
serge750wargame_insomniac

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 07 Mar 2023, 14:39 The article says, 7 (5 T23 and 2 T45) of the 18 (soon to be 17) escorts are in deep refit. In other words, only 11 escorts are manned.

Today, we read the news of HMS Enterprise decommissioning in a month.

T31 and T26, being new, will provide good active fraction. This is already good enough. Simple calculation leads me to see that the crew of 11 escorts are just the crew needed for the 5 T31, 8 T26 and 6 T45 (still one of each in long refit).

- 200 x11 = 2200 (including flight)
- 125 x4 (T31; one in refit) + 160 x 7 (T26; one in refit) + 200 x 5 (T45) = 2620 (including flight)

No need for "more escorts". This calculation shows we need at least 2 more escort to be put into long refit (or extended readiness).

There is absolutely no need for T32. Much better to invest the money to improve ammo stock, increase the man-power salary, and up-arm the existing assets.
Donald the need for T32 isn't because the Navy has spare sailors who need a ship to serve on.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Quite the RN has identified a need for more ships and HMG have so far agreed the need is correct and are looking at funding

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4585
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Whilst I agree with more ships, the direction seems to be fewer ships overall, but more larger ones.

We are quickly moving from a RN major surface fleet of 49 to a max of 42.

Was - 2 CVFs, 2 LPDs, 19 DDs/FFs, 13 MCMs, 8 OPVs, Ice Patrol ship, 4 Survey ships

Hopefully? - 2 CVFs, 2 LPDs, 24 DDs/FFs, MRoSS, OSV, 4 LSVs, 5 OPVs, Ice Patrol ship, 2 Survey Ships (assuming HMS Scott Survives and I’m probably counting two RFAs in this list)
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 07 Mar 2023, 20:21
Hopefully? - 2 CVFs, 2 LPDs, 24 DDs/FFs, MRoSS, OSV, 4 LSVs, 5 OPVs, Ice Patrol ship, 2 Survey Ships (assuming HMS Scott Survives and I’m probably counting two RFAs in this list)
What is happening with the proposed LSVs?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

tomuk wrote: 07 Mar 2023, 16:18 Donald the need for T32 isn't because the Navy has spare sailors who need a ship to serve on.
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Mar 2023, 17:00 Quite the RN has identified a need for more ships and HMG have so far agreed the need is correct and are looking at funding
Then why not start from funding more salary for more man power NOW? To get higher retention rate?
MOD do not need to wait for T32 escort design concept getting matured.

RN is disbanding assets still useful.

Why not define second “double crewed frigate” to obtain the high operational tempo HMS Montrose has shown?

Two RFA Waves are still young vessels, can be stationed for Caribbean patrol and be used for aviation training. Why not modify them to be a “hospital ship” to replace Argus PCRS capability?

If there be 800 more skilled sailers in RN, it will provide two more escort crew team (50% will be in training/promoting/supporting duties) which can be used to better utilize existing assets. Improving the RN capability even without no more ships added.

400 more skilled sailers in RFA, two Tides will be active.

More man power and more ammo stock is the priority of RN/RFA. T32 is good but zero need to hurry.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
serge750wargame_insomniac

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

A) there is no hurry the next ship after T-31 No 5 would come in 2029

B) the biggest retention killer is not being at sea look at HMS POW

C) to get the high op tempo on type 23 we Killed her the simple fact is the type 23's are done and we need to use them with kid gloves and nurse them until the Type 26's and 31's come on line

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote: 08 Mar 2023, 08:03 A) there is no hurry the next ship after T-31 No 5 would come in 2029
Two points.
- Why RN disbanded HMS Enterprise? Because she is useless anymore? MROSS(1) has even not started trial. HMS Echo has been disbanded already so there shall be plenty of crew good at hydrographic work. Where have they gone?
- I have no vision how to man the T23's coming back from LIFEX. Not to mention how to try successful "double crewing" on second escort, which will surely improve the number of escorts joining CSG and NATO fleet.
B) the biggest retention killer is not being at sea look at HMS POW
Then, why not reuse the crew for HMS Enterprise? Of course not. POW issue is unrelated to man-power shortage.
C) to get the high op tempo on type 23 we Killed her the simple fact is the type 23's are done and we need to use them with kid gloves and nurse them until the Type 26's and 31's come on line
Not related to "lack of man-power" issue, I think.

Anyway, there is NO NEED to hurry T32 at all.

By the way, T31 hull5 will be handed over to RN on 2028-2029. And we all know full-crew need to be assigned nearly a year before. To prepare enough skilled naval engineers by 2027-2028, only 4-5 years are left. No time to waste. Increase salary and improve retention rate. At least, it is much more important than investing on T32 or up-arming T31 for sure.

[EDIT] Actually, "2025-2026 problem" is coming soon. T31 hull1 and T26 hull1 needs full crew by 2025 and 2026, respectively. They are tasked with "1st of class ship trial", which take ~2 years or more. They are not commissioned so not "active", but still full crew are needed. RN cannot provide that crew without disbanding some of the existing assets. Even if RN start increasing salary today, time left is very short.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

IMHO, crew and equipment are two sides of the same coin. Shiny new kit with 21st century accommodation wireless everywhere on a high profile trip around the world will not have problems finding crew. "Build it and they will come"

Post Reply